Tuesday, October 28, 2014

The sudden realization that there is too much testing going on in the US has led to suggestions that we start all over again, and this time get it right – design "fewer, better tests." ("Coalition wants new school accountability," Oct. 28). In doing so, let us consider the research that suggests that teacher evaluation of students (grades) does a better job of evaluating students than standardized testing does: The repeated judgments of professionals who are with students every day is more valid that a test created by distant strangers. Moreover, teacher evaluations are “multiple measures,” are closely aligned to the curriculum, and cover a variety of subjects.There is evidence supporting this view. Studies show that adding adding SAT scores to high school students grades in college prep courses did not provide much more information than grades alone, which suggests that we may not need standardized tests at all.If we want tests in order to compare student achievement over time and to compare subgroups of students, we already have an instrument for this, the NAEP.The NAEP is administered to small groups who each take a portion of the test every few years. Results are extrapolated to estimate how the larger groups would score. Our efforts should be to improve the NAEP, not start all over again, and go through years expensive fine-tuning with new instruments.We need not test every student in every subject every year. When you get a physical, they don't take all your blood, they only take a sample. Stephen Krashen

original article: http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2014/10/28/teachers-unions-education-advocacy-groups-call-for-new-accountability-system

Sunday, October 26, 2014

Dolores Umbridge, chair of a newly formed but unnamed committee with representatives of the US Department of Education, The Gates Foundation, PARCC, and the Pearson organization, today announced spectacular progress in creating new labels for the "that-which-shall-not-be-named" standards and testing program now adopted by most of the United States.

At a press conference Umbridge assured reporters that regardless of which of the many new terms are adopted by individual states, all versions will remain true to Susan Ohanian's characterization: “a radical untried curriculum overhaul” combined with “nonstop national testing."

Friday, October 24, 2014

There is no "Percy Jackson Problem" (October 22). Decades of research published in scientific journals support Neil Gaiman's position that the "light" reading that young people select on their own is a gateway to heavier reading and more: Those who do more "free voluntary reading" do better on tests of reading comprehension, writing, vocabulary, spelling and grammar, and as they read they select, on their own, more challenging and a wider variety of reading material. In his book Scientific Genius Dean Simonton concludes that "omnivorous reading in childhood and adolescence correlates positively with ultimate adult success."

The scientific evidence clearly supports the "so long as they're reading" camp.

Sent to Time Magazine, Oct. 23, 2014.Re: Taking on Teacher Tenure, Time, November 3, 2014

"Unassuming" tycoon David Welch is also unformed. He claims he prefers a world of "concrete facts" but still maintains that the American education system is "failing" because of bad teachers who can't be fired. The concrete facts are these: When researchers control for the effects of poverty, American students score near the top of the world on international tests. Our unspectacular (but not horrible) performance on tests is because of our high child poverty rate, about 23%, second highest among 34 economically advanced countries, according to UNICEF. High-scoring countries such as Finland have a child poverty rate of about 5%. Poverty means, among other things, poor nutrition, lack of health care, and little access to books. All of these have powerful negative effects on school performance. The best teaching in the world has little effect when students are hungry, ill, and have little or nothing to read. Our main problem is not teaching quality, unions, or the rules for due process. The main problem is poverty.

Wednesday, October 22, 2014

Published in the
Denver Post, Oct 24. 2014: http://blogs.denverpost.com/eletters/2014/10/23/arne-duncans-support-reducing-school-tests/34196/

Secretary of
Education Arne Duncan has been an enthusiastic supporter of the common core
testing program, accurately described as "nonstop testing" by
education expert Susan Ohanian.The
common core imposes more testing on our children than has ever been seen on our
planet, and no attempt was made to determine if the new tests result in higher
student achievement.

Now Duncan says he supports a
movement to eliminate redundant and inappropriate tests.This should have been done using small-scale
studies before the tests were forced on millions of children.

Stephen Krashen

original article: http://www.denverpost.com/opinion/ci_26762648/test-tests?source=infinite

Arne Duncan: A test for
school tests

By Arne Duncan

As a parent, I want to know how my children are
progressing in school each year. The more I know, the more I can help them
build upon their strengths and interests and work on their weaknesses. The
more I know, the better I can reinforce at home each night the hard work of
their teachers during the school day.

The standardized tests my kids take are one gauge
on the dashboard, but parents and educators know that tests are not the
only indicator.

Last week, state education chiefs and district
superintendents announced a plan to examine their assessment systems,
ensure that assessments are high-quality and cut back testing that doesn't
meet that bar or is redundant. I welcome that important step.

Parents have a right to know how much their
children are learning; teachers, schools and districts need to know how
students are progressing; and policymakers must know where students are
excelling, improving and struggling. A focus on measuring student learning
has had real benefits, especially for our most vulnerable students,
ensuring that they are being held to the same rigorous standards as their
well-off peers and shining a light on achievement gaps.

However, many have expressed concern about
low-quality and redundant tests. And in some places, tests — and
preparation for them — dominate the calendar and culture of schools,
causing undue stress.

Policymakers at every level bear responsibility
here — and that includes me and my department. We will support state and
district leaders in taking on this issue and provide technical assistance
to those who seek it.

To be clear: I strongly believe in using
high-quality assessments, including annual tests, as one (but only one)
part of how adults improve instruction and hold themselves responsible for
students' progress. With my own kids, I know parent-teacher conferences,
grades and other feedback round out the picture of whether they're on
track.

After a generation of watching other nations
surpass ours educationally, the United States is putting the building
blocks in place for schools that will once again lead the world. But for
this effort to pay off, political leaders must be both strong and flexible
in support of the nation's educators.

America's schools are changing because our world
is changing. Success in today's world requires critical thinking, adaptability,
collaboration, problem solving and creativity — skills that go beyond the
basics for which schools were designed in the past. But in recent decades,
other countries have retooled their schools faster than we have.

We must do better. A great education isn't just
what every parent wants for his or her child; it's a necessity for security
in a globally competitive economy.

The good news is that, thanks to the hard work of
educators, students and communities, America's schools have made historic
achievements in recent years. The U.S. high school graduation rate is at an
all-time high, and the places most committed to bold change have made major
progress on the nation's report card. Since 2000, high school dropout rates
have been cut in half for Hispanic students and more than a third for
African Americans. College enrollment by black and Hispanic students has
surged.

Perhaps even more important, educators are taking
fundamental steps to help reclaim the United States' leadership in
education. Throughout the country, students are being taught to higher
standards, by teachers empowered to be creative and to teach critical
thinking skills. Last year, nearly 30 states, led by both Republicans and
Democrats, increased funding for early learning.

Yet change this big is always hard, and political
leaders — myself included — must provide support and make course
corrections where needed. We are asking a great deal of our educators and
students. Despite their hard work, and a growing embrace of many of these
changes, one topic — standardized testing — sometimes diverts energy from
this ambitious set of changes.

Fortunately, states and districts are taking on
this challenge — including places such as Rhode Island and New York state;
St. Paul, Minn.; Nashville; and the District of Columbia, where leaders are
already taking actions to limit testing. As they and others move forward, I
look forward to highlighting progress others can learn from.

States are also leading the way on improving test
quality, building assessments that move beyond bubble tests and measure
critical thinking skills and writing; the Education Department has provided
$360 million to two consortia of states to support that work. And to reduce
stress on teachers during this year of transition, my department in August
offered states new flexibility on connecting teacher evaluation to test
results.

It's vital that political leaders stand behind
changes that will prepare our young people for success in the real world —
changes that educators have worked so hard to get underway. We must also
stand behind states that have increased standards for learning, and where
adults are holding themselves responsible for the progress of all students.
We must stand strong for responsible and equitable school funding. We must
stand strong for making both preschool and college accessible to all.

And we must stand strong in the knowledge — not
the belief but the knowledge — that great schools make a difference in the
lives of all children.

Scientists use the term "conjecture" when their generalization is based on such flimsy
evidence that it does not deserve the label "hypothesis." This is such a case. My
conjecture is that accurate pronunciation in a second language, even in adults, is acquired
rapidly and very well. We simply do not use our best accents because we feel silly.

Restated in more respectable terms, we have an "output filter," a block that keeps us from
doing our best, from "performing our competence." This block is powerful and it is
difficulty, maybe impossible, to lower or weaken it with conscious effort. (The output
filter differs from the affective, or input filter. The affective filter prevents input from
reaching the language acquisition device. The output filter prevents us from using what
we have acquired.)

Here is the flimsy evidence. Much of it is based on my own experience, but I suspect,
after presenting these ideas to a number of audiences and getting reactions, that others
have had similar experiences.

1. Variability: Our accents in second languages vary, depending on how we feel. We are
influenced by the situation, especially whether we feel we are being evaluated. When I
speak French to someone who doesn’t speak English (or at least not very well), where
there is no audience, and I am comfortable with that person, I must say that my accent is
not bad. On other occasions I have been told that I speak French without a traced of a
French accent.

Here is an example of the latter, an experience I hope some readers can identify with. I
was visiting Ottawa in the early 1980’s, meeting with former colleagues, discussing, in
French, our work on sheltered subject matter teaching which had begun when I worked
there a few years before. I was very comfortable with the group I was talking with; they
included a close friend and my former French teacher. I was doing very well. While I was
at the chalkboard, making a point, a stranger entered the room. My mind raced: This man
is probably a native speaker of French, or at least much better than I am, and he probably
thinks my French is terrible. My accent and fluency deteriorated immediately and
involuntarily. In other words, my output filter went up.

One of the most accomplished polyglots in the world, Dr. Kato Lomb of Hungary, reports
that she has had similar experiences. Now 88, Dr. Lomb has acquired 17 languages and is
now working on Hebrew. I visited Dr. Lomb several times recently, and we spoke
English (her English is excellent). On one visit, my wife and daughter came with me. Dr. Lomb remarked to me that she felt her accent in English had been better when we were
alone. She explained that she felt quite comfortable with my wife and daughter, but the
fact that she did not know them as well as she knew me caused a small amount of self-
consciousness and hurt her performance. Dr. Lomb is an enormously successful language
acquirer and an experienced interpreter; if she feels the effects of the output filter, we can
be sure others do.

2. Our ability to imitate other dialects of our first language, as well as foreign accents.
Given sufficient input, we can all do these things to at least some extent. The point is that
we do not, because we would feel uncomfortable doing so. The output filter holds us
back.

I can imitate, to some extent, a British accent. I have acquired the rules for doing so
subconsciously, and have no idea what kind of articulatory adjustments I am making
when I do it. I do not, however, use a British accent when speaking to someone from
London. My perception is that it would be rude, and even ridiculing, as if I were making
fun of his speech, or as if I were representing myself as someone I am not.

Similarly, we can imitate foreign accents in our first language. Obviously, we do not do
this in ordinary conversation. It would, we feel, be perceived as rude.
There are domains in which the use of these accents is permitted, in plays and jokes, for
example. Even in these situations, however, their use is sensitive. In plays, dialects must
be rendered very accurately, and in jokes their use can be demeaning.
Our ability, yet reluctance to use accents and dialects again shows that we do not perform
our competence fully and that there are powerful affective forces holding us back.

3. The alcohol study. Guiora, Beit-Hallahmi, Brannon, Dull, and Scovel (1972) asked
subjects to drink different amounts of alcohol after eating a candy bar. Not unexpectedly,
they reported that subjects’ short-term memory decreased with greater consumption.
Accent in a foreign language, however, was best after subjects drank 1.5 ounces of
bourbon. It was less accurate with both less and more than this amount of alcohol. There
was, in other words, an optimal point of inebriation. As most of us know, alcohol has the
effect of lowering inhibitions. My interpretation of these results is that alcohol lowers the
output filter, at least temporarily. Too much alcohol, however, disturbs control of the
speech apparatus.

4. Stevick’s example. Stevick (1980) describes a Swahili class he taught at the Foreign
Service Institute that had three students in it. One was at a significantly higher level than
the others. When the top student had to drop the class, the number two student suddenly
showed a dramatic improvement. My conjecture is that his output filter lowered, freed
from the inhibiting influence of the better student.

Discussion

To understand what factors are at work here, we need to consider what language is for.
Sociolinguists tell us that language has two functions: To communicate and to mark the
speaker as a member of a social group. A part of language that plays a major role in
marking us as members of a social group is accent. Accent has little to do with
communication; we can communicate quite well in another language having acquired
only some of the sound system. Accent tells the hearer who you are, where you are from,
in some cases your social class, and in other cases your values. When we identify with
the members of a group, we talk the way they do.

Beebe’s review (Beebe, 1985) confirms this. We do not always imitate the speech we
hear the most. Children usually talk the way their peers talk, not the way their parents or
teachers talk. (In some cases, children do talk like their parents; these children identify
with adult values, rather than those of other children, confirming that it is group
membership that counts.)

My conjecture is that accent is acquired rapidly but is not performed, because we do not
feel like members of the group that uses it; we are not members of the club (Smith,
1988). Either we do not wish to be members or have not been invited to be members.
And even after we feel we are at least partly in the group, we can feel suddenly excluded,
resulting in a stronger output filter.

If this conjecture is correct, it has interesting implications for pedagogy. Despite the
numerous "accent improvement" courses available, there is no evidence that second
language accent can be permanently improved by direct instruction. Even if we could
improve accent through instruction, however, the effect might be harmful. Getting people
to talk like members of groups they do not belong to may be similar to convincing
someone to wear inappropriate clothing - a tuxedo at an informal lunch or a jogging suit
at a formal dinner.

This conjecture does not suggest that all those with accents in their second language who
live in the country where the language is spoken have failed to become members of
society. In fact, it suggests the contrary. Most second language acquirers have good
accents. Listen to them carefully. They are rarely perfect if they began the second
language as adults, but they typically acquire an impressive amount of the sound system.
They certainly do not speak the second language using only the sound system of their
first language. The problem is that we usually make "all or nothing" judgments with
respect to accent. Either it is native-like or "accented." In reality, many second language
acquirers acquire substantial amounts of the second language accent. In addition, it is
likely that we hear them under less than optimal affective conditions: with lower output
filters, they may sound even better.

If this conjecture is correct, another conclusion we can draw is that only our "best"
accents, produced under optimal conditions, should be considered when judging accent
quality or when discussing the limits of adult acquisition of pronunciation.

Saturday, October 18, 2014

Sent to The Atlantic (October 18), in response to their “big question” column soliciting opinions about “The Greatest Scam of All Time.” Nominations included Bitcoin, psychics, and Madoff. Here is my suggestion.

Just in case discussion of this “big question” (October, 2014) is not closed, I nominate The Common Core State Standards (abbreviation: CC$$). The CC$$ attempts to solve a problem that does not exist, our so-called failing schools, by imposing what education expert Susan Ohanian describes as “a radical untried curriculum overhaul” and “nonstop national testing."

The major problem in American education is not teaching quality, not a lack of standards or tests, but poverty: The US now ranks 34th in the world out of 35 economically developed countries in child poverty: when researchers control for the effect of poverty, US international test scores are at the top of the world, a clear demonstration that there is nothing seriously wrong with our teachers or our standards. Children of poverty do poorly in school because of the impact of poverty: Poor nutrition, poor health care, and lack of access to books, among other things.

The obvious first step is to improve nutrition through school food programs, improve health care through investing more in school nurses, and improving access to books through investing in school libraries.

Instead, the US government is investing billions in a tougher, more "rigorous" curriculum that has never been field tested for validity (and there are no plans to do so), and instituting an astonishing amount of testing, more than we have ever seen on this planet.

The core of the scam is the requirement that all tests be delivered online. This means billions to make sure all students are connected to the internet with up-to-date computers, billions for constant upgrading and billions for replacement of obsolete equipment, because of never-ending new technologies. There is no evidence, and no plans to gather evidence, showing that this brave new testing will help children. In fact, there is evidence that increasing testing does not increase school achievement.

The computer companies and publishers selling us the common core take no risk: taxpayers pay for everything. Also, the companies can't lose: If student achievement declines, teachers will be blamed, and we will be told that we need even tougher standards and more and higher-tech tests. The scam will continue indefinitely.

Wednesday, October 15, 2014

Remarks on Language
Acquisition and Literacy: Language Acquisition and Teaching, Free Reading,"Test-Prep" and its Consequences,
The Use of the First Language, Writing, and the Great Native Speaker Teacher
Debate

Stephen
Krashen

Prepared
for the Roundtable Discussion on English Teaching in Hong Kong. Bring Me a
Book, Hong Kong, October 13, 2014

Some Fundamentals

I
present first what I consider to be the fundamentals of both language acquisition
and literacy development. (What follows in this section is presented in more
detail in a number of publications, i.e. Krashen, 1981, 1982, 1985, 2003).

Language
and literacy can be"acquired" or "learned."
"Acquisition" occurs subconsciously: While it is happening, you are
not aware it is happening, and after it has happemed, the knowledge is
represented subconsiously in your brain. In contrast, "learning" is
conscious; it is "knowing about" the language. When we talk about
"rules" and "grammar" we are usually talking about
"Learning."

Acquired
competence plays a much larger role in language use than learned competence
does. Acquired competence provides our fluency and nearly all of our accuracy
when we speak or write in a second language. Learned competence makes only a
small contribution to our grammatical accuracy, and only when stringent
conditions are met: We must consciously know the rule, which is daunting
considering the complexity of the grammar of any language, we must have time to
apply the rule, which is not usually available in conversation, and we must be
thinking about correctness, or focussed on form.

This
is not to say that grammar teaching is bad and must be forbidden: The point is
that it is limited: Only a small part of the grammatical system of any language
can be consciously learned, it takes time and effort to retrieve grammatical
rules from our memory and apply them, and this can only happen when we are
thinking about formal correctness. These severe conditions are met on grammar
tests, and it is here where see clear evidence of the use of consciously
learned rules (Krashen, 1981). Consciously learned rules are also of some help
in editing, the final stage of the composing process.

Acquisition
of language and literacy takes place in only one way: When we understand what
we hear and read, that is, when we understand the message. "Learning"
takes place when we consciously study the rules of a language, or figure them
out, and they become "automatic" when we use them repeatedly in
speech or writing,Error correction, it
is hypothesized, helps us arrive at the right version of our consciously
learned rules. Error correciton only shows an effect when the conditions for
the use of conscious grammar are met, and the effect is typically weak, fragile,
and often not even present at all (Truscott, 1996, 2005, 2008), confirming the
limitations of grammar learning.

An
important corrollary of the Comprehension Hypothesis is that we do not acquire
language when we produce it, only when we understand it. The ability to speak
is the result of language acquisition, not the cause (see also remarks on
writing, below). Another corrollary is the claim that when acquirers obtain
sufficient comprehensible input, all the grammatical structures they are ready
to acquire are automatically present in the input (see especially Krashen, 2013a).

For
acquisition to happen, we must pay attention to what we read or what is said to
us. For this to happen, the input must be interesting to us. It may be the case
that optimal input is "compelling," so interesting that we are not
aware of what grammatical forms are being used in the input or sometimes what
language we are listening to or reading. This happens in enjoyable
conversations and when we are "lost in a book" or movie. Language
acquisition and literay development is the unexpected and sometimes even
unrecognized by-product of compelling comprehensible input (Krashen, 2011a).

Application

A
number of studies have shown that second and foreign language classes based on
the Comprehension Hypothesis are more
effective than those based on conscious learning (Krashen, 1982, 1991, 2003,
2014).These classes do not force
students to speak before they feel ready to speak, and errors are not
corrected.

An
early compehension-based method was Total Physical Response (TPR), developed by
James Asher, which relied largly on teachers giving students commands and the
students obeying the commands, which were made comprehensible by the teachers'
movements (e.g. Asher, 1966, 1969). This was followed by the Natural Approach,
developed by Tracy Terrell, which encorporated TPR as well as discussions,
games, and tasks (Krashen and Terrell, 1983).

A
recently developed comprehension-based method is Teaching Proficiency Through
Reading and Storytelling (TPRS), developed by Blane Ray. TPRS, as the name
indicates, includes reading and the co-creation of stories/drama involving the
teacher and the students.

Focal
Skills, as the name implies, focuses on one component at a time (eg Listening
and then Reading) with an emphasis on comprehensible input. Focal Skills was
developed by Ashley Hastings.

As
noted earlier, these methods have passed the empirical test: students in these
classes outperform those in traditional classes on a variety of tests that
involve communication, and do as well or better on traditional grammar tests.
Most important, when language study is voluntary, students in
comprehension-based classes are also are more likely to continue with language classes
the next term.

Comprehension-based language classes at the intermediate level
are content-based, or "sheltered." In sheltered classes, second
language acquirers study content. If there is a test or project required, it is
based on the content of the class. When compared to intermediate foreign
language classes, students in sheltered classes acquire as much or more
language, and a great deal of subject matter. They also make progress acquiring
"academic language" (Krashen, 1991, Dupuy, 2000).I need to point out that sheltered subject
matter teaching is not the same thing as the Sheltered Instruction Observation
Protocal, or SIOP model (Krashen, 2013b).

Free voluntary reading

By
far the most powerful tool we have in language and literacy development is free
voluntary reading, reading because you want to. Study after study confirms that
free voluntary reading is the source of our reading ability, writing style,
vocabulary, spelling, and the ability to handle complex grammatical
constructions (Krashen, 2004; 2011b).Free voluntary reading works because it is comprehensible input, and,
very often, it is compelling.

Not only do readers develop more competence in
literacy, they also know more: Those who read more know more about literature
(Ravitch and Finn, 1987; West, Stanovich, and Mitchell, 1983), about science
and social studies (Stanovich and Cunningham, 1993), and even have more
“practical knowledge” (Stanovich and Cunningham, 1993). Much of this occurs
when readers are reading what some consider to be "light" reading,
largely fiction.

Research
demonstrating the value of free voluntary reading includes studies of Sustained
Silent Reading (SSR), a program in which about ten to fifteen minutes each day
is taken from the language class each day, and students simply read whatever
they want to read. There is no accountability in the form of tests or book
reports, readers do not have to finish every book they start, and do not have
to even remember to bring their own book each time: SSR programs also include
access to classroom and school libraries.

SSR
studies using English have been done with first and second languages, with
children, teenagers and older readers, with consistently positive results
(Krashen, 2004, 2011; Pilgreen, 2000). For rccent evidence showing that in-school
self-selected reading works for Chinese as well, see Tse, Xiao, Ko, Lam, Hui,
and Ng (in press). Krashen (2011c) discusses some current conerns about
sustained silent reading, e.g. whether students are really reading during SSR
or just doing sustained silent page-turning, as some have claimed.

Case
histories confirm the value of free reading. This one shows the effect of
compelling reading on first language literay development:

Fink (1996)
studied twelve people, English speakers in the US, who had been classified as
dyslexic when they were young. Eleven learned to read between ages ten and
twelve and one did not learn to read until grade 12. All learned to read quite
well. In fact, nine published creative or scholarly works and one won a Nobel
Prize.

Compelling
comprehensible reading was the path for all of them: “As children, each had a
passionate personal interest, a burning desire to know more about a discipline
that required reading. Spurred by this passionate interest, all read
voraciously, seeking and reading everything they could get their hands on about
a single intriguing topic" (pp. 274-275).

Their goal, I
suggest, was not to "learn to read." Their goal was to find out more
about something that was interesting to them.

The Book Whisperer

A promising way
of combing sheltered subject matter teaching and free reading is to offer
sheltered literature classes. Donalyn Miller (2009) has developed an excellent
method that she uses in classes for native speakers that can easily be applied
to second and foreign language classes. Students are required to read works in
a variety of genres, and there is class discussion of the structure of genre.
But all reading is self-selected. If the assignment is to read two biographies,
a student can select ANY two, even Lady Gaga and Tiger Woods. This insures
reading that is compelling to each student, and insures that discussions will
be lively and insightful. Miller reports that her middle school students are
required to read about 40 books during the school year in this kind of program,
and that those who read the 40 books always read more.

Some Issues in Free Voluntary Reading

Isn't reading in decline?

We
always hear that "nobody likes to read these days" and there are
regular warnings from the media that reading is in a decline. A look at the
evidence shows this is not true at all (Krashen, 2011d). If it is not true, why
is this belief so common? Schatz, Panko, Pierce, and Krashen (2010) asked fourth
and fifth graders in the US how much they liked to read (a lot, kind of, not
very much) and asked them how much their friends and classmates liked to read.
The students consistently reported that they liked to read more than both other
groups. This, of course, cannot be true in the case of classmates because in
the studies all members of the same class took the survey.

Our
(Lee, Lao and Krashen, forthcoming) study found identical results for seventh
graders in Hefei, China.Our conclusion:
We underestmate how much others like to read and how much they read because we
don't see it happening. Reading is usually a private activity.

Will they stick with
easy reading?

There
is a fear that children, if allowed to select their own reading, will stick
with easy books and they will never make progress in literacy development. In
fact, the US Common Core language arts standards requires that children read at
their reading level or above, never below (Krashen, 2013c). We (Krashen, Lee
and Lao, forthcoming) obtained titles and samples of books that children took
out of the library at an elementary school in Hefei, and asked both teachers
and some students to rate the books in terms of difficulty of language and
content. The judges agreed: There is of course variation, but children tend to
choose harder and more complex books as they matured.They don't stick to easy reading.

The Bridge Hypothesis

Self-selected
free voluntary reading alone will generally not bring readers to the highest
levels of literacy. It serves as a bridge, building the competence, both
linguistic and cognitive, that will make very demanding reading more
comprehensible.Simonton's findings
confirm this: Simonton (1988) concluded that "omnivorous
reading in childhood and adolescence correlates positively with ultimate adult
success." (p. 11).

Michael Faraday (1791-1867) is a good example. Faraday
came from a poor family, left school before he was 13, and worked for seven
years as an apprentice bookbinder. This meant he had lots of access to books.
His employer “was a sympathetic and helpful individual who did much to
encourage his apprentices’ interests” (Howe, 1999 p. 266). According to Howe,
Faraday “read voraciously” and also attended lectures and classes on his own.

Faraday clearly never studied, never prepared for
examinations. He did a great deal of wide reading when he was a teen-ager,
including The Arabian Nights and novels. Howe speculates that Faraday's
interest in science grew gradually, becoming firm when he was around 18 (p.
88).

Working as an assistant to a famous chemist, Humphrey
Davy, Faraday immediately took advantage of the facilities available to him and
"plunged into research of his own" (Howe, p. 102) at age 21, and published
his first paper at age 25, leading to his stunning career as one of the
greatest scientists of all time.

Thus, compelling self-selected reading, in addition to
providing us with literacy and knowledge, helps us discover our interests and
our strengths.

Libraries

For reading to happen, we must have access to books.
Given access to interesting reading and time to read, nearly all young people
will read (Krashen, 2004), but without access, no reading will take place.

A major source of reading material is the library –
and for those living in poverty, it is often the only source. There is an
impressive body of research showing that access to a quality school library
results in better literacy development (especially the work of Keith Curry Lance,
available online at http://www.lrs.org/impact.php).

We (Krashen, Lee, and McQuillan, 2012) analyzed of
data from the PIRLS examination, a reading test given to 10 year-old children
in over 40 countries in their own language. We found that the strongest
predictor of reading achievement was SES, socio-economic class, defined here as
a combination of education, life expectancy and wealth in each country. In
agreement with many other studies, we found that lower SES meant lower
performance.

Access to a school library with at least 500 books was
the second strongest predictor of reading achievement. As was the case in another
study (Achterman, 2008) the library predictor was nearly as strong a positive
predictor as social class was a negative predictor, which suggests that access
to books via a library can balance the negative effect of poverty.

The predictor "hours per week devoted to reading
instruction" did not do well.In
fact, according to our analysis, the effect of instruction was modest and
negative, that is, more instruction tended to be related to lower performance
on the reading test. It may be the case that a little reading instruction is
beneficial, but after a point it is ineffective and counterproductive.

It makes sense to predict that libraries will have
their strongest impact in less SES advanced countries, situations in which
children have few or no other sources of books. Elley (1992) has reported just
that (p. 67).

A
matter of concern.

PIRLS also supplies data on what percentage of ten
year-olds and their parents like to read. It can be argued that this kind of
data is the most important: If young people like to read, and they have access
to books and time to read, they will do well only any examination, and continue
to read and grow in language and literacy for years after our programs end.
Data from some high SES countries confirms this. Ten year olds in the countries
listed in table 1 also have high PIRLS scores.

Table 1: High SES, High PIRLS, and they like to read

n = 7

HDI

parent likes

child likes

New Zealand

0.91

51

32

Australia

0.93

48

30

Canada

0.90

41

35

Germany

0.91

37

34

Israel

0.89

41

32

Ireland

0.91

48

37

Austria

0.89

40

31

MEAN

.91 (.01)

43.7 (5.2)

33 (2.5)

Data
from: Mullis, Martin, Foy, and Drucker, 2012.

We have noted, however, that in some places, SES and
PIRLS scores are high, but neither children nor their parents say they like to
read (Loh and Krashen, forthcoming). We call this group the
"test-prep" group, for reasons that will become clear below.

Table 3: The Test-Prep group

n = 4

HDI

parent likes

child likes

Hong Kong

0.90

14

21

Taiwan

0.88

17

23

Italy

0.87

24

23

Singapore

0.87

21

22

MEANS

.88 (.01)

19 (4.4)

22.3 (.96)

Data from: Mullis, Martin, Foy, and Drucker, 2012.

Table 3 compares the groups in tables 1 and 2 with
overall results from 41 countries:

Table 3: Comparisons

Group

N

HDI

parent likes

child likes

PIRLS

Baseline

7

.91 (.01)

43.7 (5.2)

33 (2.5)

538.4 (9.7)

Test Prep

4

.88(.01)

19 (4.4)

22.3 (.96)

558 (13.7)

overall

41

.83 (.07)

31.2 (11.3)

28.1 (6.5)

509.7 (56)

Data from: Mullis, Martin, Foy, and Drucker, 2012.

For the countries in table 2, children are not
enthusiastic about reading but score well on the PIRLS anyway. It seems that they have taken an alternate
route to a high score on PIRLS, known as test-preparation, classtime dedicated
to making students familiar with the exam, as well as teaching test-taking
strategies, techniques that will result in higher scores but not because of
better reading ability, e.g. eliminating obvious distractors on multiple-choice
tests, reading the question before reading the passage, etc.. Test-preparation
alone, however, is probably not enough to achieve the high scores these
students get. Most likely these students are also fed a heavy dose of assigned,
difficult reading.

If this analysis is correct, children in the
"test-prep" areas pay a heavy price for their high PIRLS scores. The
lack of interest in reading of their parents suggests that test-prep plus
uninteresting reading can result in a permanent lack of interest in reading,
which has very negative consequences.

Bilingual
education: The use of the first language

Bilingual education is hotly debated all over the
world. My interpretation is that it is a very good thing. Effective bilingual
programs use the child's first language in ways that accelerate second language
development. This can happen in two ways:

-A
good education in the child's first language means more subject matter
knowledge and more knowledge of the world, which means that what the child
reads and hears is more comprehensible.

-Developing
literacy in the child's first language is a short-cut to developing literacy in
the second language: If we learn to read by understanding text, as proposed by
Goodman (Flurkey
and Xu, 2003) and Smith (2004), a concept related to the
Comprehension Hypothesis, it is easier to learn to read in a language you
already know: It is more comprehensible. The transfer of reading ability across
languages occurs even when the writing sytems are very different (Cummins, 1991;
Krashen, 1996): Once you have learned to read in any language, you have learned
to read. Correlations between reading scores in the first and second language
are generally positive, given the chance to acquire the second language (e.g.
Loh and Tse, 2009).

Good bilingual programs provide cmprehensible subject
matter instruction without translation in the first language, develop literacy
in the first language, and provide second language classes based on the
comprehension approach. Scientific studies done in the US consistently
show that language minority students in well-designed bilingual programs
outperform similar students enrolled in English-only programs on tests of
English reading (McField and McField, 2014), and similar results have been
obtained from studies done in other countries with other languages (Krashen,
1999; Lao and Krashen, 1998).

Continuing development
of the first language

Early
use of the first language in school will, as discussed just above, lead to
better acquisition of the second language. There are good arguments for
continuing first language development to high levels: Better communication with
the older generation, which means access to wisdom not available elsewhere,
practical, economic advantages, and greater cognitive development (Krashen,
Tse, and McQuillan, 1998).

There
is, in fact, recent research showing that regular use more than one language in
daily life can slow the onset of dementia (Bialystok, Craik and Freedman,2007). Bialystok, Craik, Klein,
and Viswanathan (2004) explain why: they found that older bilinguals show less of
a decline with age than monolinguals in tasks that require keeping information
in mind and ignoring distractors. Apparently, the regular use of two languages
helps maintain this ability.

What about writing?

Despite
assertions that we that we “learn to write by writing,” the research is consistent
with the view that writing itself does not contribute directly to language
acquisition.The competence required to
write with an effective and acceptable writing style comes from reading, as
does nearly all our mastery of the "conventions of writing" (Krashen,
2004, Lee 2005).

But
writing, in addition to communicating our ideas, makes profound contributions.
Writing is a powerful means of helping us solve problems: Writing, in other
words, makes us smarter.

The
field of language arts has made great progress in the last few decades in
revealing strategies good writers use to do this, i.e. the composing process (Krashen,
2014; Lee and Krashen, 2003).An example
is revision: Good writers realize that as they go from draft to draft, they
come up with better and clearer ideas. As Peter Elbow has noted, in writing, "Meaning
is not what you start with, but what you end up
with" (Elbow, 1973, p. 15).

Thus,
acquisition of the special language of writing comes from reading, but our
ability to use writing to solve problems comes from knowledge of the composing
process.

A controversy that is
easily settled: Native speaker teachers

The requirements

I
think it is obvious that a competent second language teacher should meet the
following requirements:

1.a knowledge of how language is acquired.

2.a knowledge of pedagogy (e.g. if the
Comprehension Hypothesis is correct, this means familiarity with TPRS, sheltered
subject matter teaching, popular literature of interest to second language
students)

3.a high level of competence in the second
language.

The
point of stating these three requirements is that number 3 alone is not enough.
This runs counter to the practice in some countries of hiring native speakers
just because they are native speakers.

A misunderstanding over
"immersion"

I
tried to make the three points presented above in a letter published in the
South China Morning Post (June 19, 2014), in which I stated: "Local teachers who can
help students find comprehensible and interesting listening and reading material,
and who can teach them about the process of second language acquisition are far
preferable to native speakers whose only advantage is an accent."

In my view, my letter should have been greeted warmly
by native speakers of English teaching in Hong Kong (the NET group). It
highlighted the necessity of understanding language acquisition and pedagogy,
of professionalism, not just being a native speaker.

Instead, the letter resulted in a storm of protest
from native speaker English teachers in Hong Kong, accusing me of seeking to
"end the NET scheme."

The problem, in my opinion, was the headline/leader to
my letter, which was written by the editorial staff of the newspaper: Students need immersion, not NET (Native
English Teachers).The headline was
wrong on two counts:

1."Immersion"
is an ambiguous word with two, totally opposite meanings: For language
education professionals, it means content-based or sheltered subject matter
teaching, discussed earlier, and is consistent with the Comprehension Hypothesis.
But for civilians, non language-educators, it means "submersion,"
doing nothing, simply plunging the language acquirer into a second language
environment full of mostly incomprehensible input.This is, of course, inconsistent with the
Comprehension Hypothesis. I suggest that professionals stop using this term.

2.I
did not say "not NET." I said that being a native speaker of English
alone is not enough. The other two requirements are very important. In a
subsequent letter (July 5, 2014) I stated: "we should not prefer
native speakers only because they are native speakers.A qualified local English teacher who
understands pedagogy is preferable to a non-qualified native speaker." I
also pointed out the confusion caused by the headline. But the headline to this
letter was also confusing: "Qualified local teachers preferable." I asked the editor to change this to
"Qualified local teachers preferable to unqualifed native speakers of
English." The editor declined to make this change.

AccentAll things equal, should we prefer a native speaker because of accent? Is
having a native accent really an advantage?I think not, if the local teacher speaks English extremely well. In fact, it is not clear that students automatically pick up the accent
of their teacher: sociolinguistic studies indicate that we get our accents from
our peers, not our teachers. Our accents represent the "club" we have
joined or want to join(Beebe, 1985).Models other than the teacher may be members
of the group the student wants to be associated with.

References

Achterman, D. 2008. Haves, Halves, and Have-Nots:
School Libraries and Student Achievement in California. PhD dissertation,
University of North Texas. http://
digital.library.unt.edu/permalink/meta-dc-9800:1

Asher, J. 1966. The learning strategy of the total
physical response: a review. Modern
Language Journal 50: 79-84.

Krashen,
S. and Terrell, T. 1983. The Natural Approach: Language Acquisition in the
Classroom. New York: Prentice-Hall. Translated into Japanese by K. Fujimori,
published in Japan by Taishukan Publishing Co.,

Loh, EKY and Tse, SK 2009. The
relationship between motivation to read Chinese and English and its impact on
the Chinese and English reading performance of Chinese students. Chinese
Education and Society 42(3): 66-90.

Loh, EKY and Krashen, S. Patterns in PIRLS performance:
The importance of liking to read, SES, and the effect of test-prep. Submitted
for publication.

McField, G. and McField,
D. 2014. The consistent outcome of bilingual education programs: A meta-analysis
of meta-analyses. In Grace McField (Ed.) 2014. The Miseducation of English
Learners. Charlotte: Information Age Publishing. pp. 267-299.

Miller, D. 2009. The Book Whisperer:
Awakening the Inner Reader in Every Child. Jossey-Bass.

Mullis, I., Martin, M., Foy, P., & Drucker K. 2012. PIRLS 2011

International Results in Reading.Amsterdam: IEA (International Association
for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement).